UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526
`
`Patent Owner SYNKLOUD LLC’s
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`1
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526
`
`Patent Owner SYNKLOUD LLC’s
`Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`1
`
`
`
`Institution Decision
`
`• Proposed Grounds Instituted
`– Claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 18-20 are alleged to
`be obvious over McCown and Dutta
`– Claims 6-8, 10, 13-15, 17 1-20 are alleged to be
`obvoius over McCown, Dutta, and Coates
`
`[Institution Decision, Paper No. 21]
`
`2
`
`
`
`The ‘526 Patent
`
`•
`
`Independent Claim 1 requires
`– A wireless device comprising:
`– at least one cache storage, one wireless interface, and program code
`configured to cause the wireless device to:
`– establish a wireless link for the wireless device access to a storage space of a
`predefined capacity assigned exclusively to a user of the wireless device by a
`storage server, and
`– couple with the storage server across the wireless link to carry out a requested
`operation for remote access to the assigned storage space in response to the
`user from the wireless device performed the operation,
`– wherein the operation for the remote access to the assigned storage space
`comprises storing a data object therein or retrieving a data object therefrom,
`the storing of a data object including to download a file from a remote server
`across a network into the assigned storage space through utilizing download
`information for the file stored in said cache storage in response to the user
`from the wireless device performed the operation for downloading the file
`from the remote server into the assigned storage space.
`
`3
`
`
`
`The ‘526 Patent
`
`•
`
`Independent Claim 11 requires
`– A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that,
`being executed by a wireless device, causes the wireless device to:
`– establish a wireless link for the wireless device access to a storage space of
`predefined capacity assigned exclusively by a storage server to a user of the
`wireless device;
`– couple with the storage server through the wireless link to carry out a
`requested operation for remote access to the assigned storage space in
`response to the user from the wireless device performed the operation,
`– wherein the operation for the remote access to the assigned storage space
`comprises storing a data object therein or retrieving a data object therefrom,
`the storing of the data object including to download a file from a remote
`server on a network into the assigned storage space through utilizing
`download information for the file stored in a cache storage of the wireless
`device in response to the user from the wireless device performed the
`operation for downloading the file from the remote server into the assigned
`storage space.
`
`4
`
`
`
`The ‘526 Patent
`
`• None of the prior art, either alone or in
`combination, would have taught all the
`limitations of independent claims 1 or 11, or
`the claims dependent therefrom.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• “a storage space of a predefined capacity
`assigned exclusively to the user of a wireless
`device by a storage server”
`– requires “deciding or setting in advance by a
`storage server an amount of storage space
`exclusively to a user of a wireless device.”
`
`[Patent Owner Response, 13; Sur-Reply, Jawadi Declaration Ex. 2004, ¶ 102
`
`6
`
`
`
`Claim Construction
`
`• “download a file from a remote server across
`a network into the assigned storage space
`through utilizing download information for the
`file stored in said cache storage”
`– Requires information needed to download a file
`from a remote server to be (i) stored in a cache
`storage of a wireless device and (ii) utilized to
`download the file across a network into an
`assigned storage space for the user of the wireless
`device.
`
`[Patent Owner Response, 10-11; Sur-Reply
`
`7
`
`
`
`The Claims Would Not Have Been Obvious Over McCown and Dutta
`
`– The Combination of McCown/Dutta Would Not
`Have Taught:
`• “download[ing] a file from a remote server across a
`network into the assigned storage space through
`utilizing download information for the file stored in said
`cache storage.”
`
`[PO Response, 17-30; Sur-Reply, Jawadi Declarations Exs. 2001, 2014 ]
`
`8
`
`
`
`The Claims Would Not Have Been Obvious Over McCown and Dutta
`
`– The Combination of McCown/Dutta Would Not
`Have Taught:
`• “a storage space of a predefined capacity assigned
`exclusively to a user of the wireless device by a storage
`server.”
`
`[PO Response, 30-39; Sur-Reply, Jawadi Declarations Exs. 2001, 2014]
`
`9
`
`
`
`The Claims Would Not Have Been Obvious Over McCown and Dutta
`
`– A POSITA Would Not Have and Could Not Have
`Combined McCown and Dutta and Reasonably
`Expect Success:
`• Petitioners’ “readily accessible” theory would not have
`motivated a POSITA to modify McCown to include a
`cache and to store download information in the
`cached.
`• Petitioners’ theory of why a POSITA would have been
`motivated to modify McCown to include a cache and to
`store download information in the cache is inconsistent
`with Petitioners’ own description of McCown.
`
`[PO Response 22-30; Sur-Reply; Jawadi Declarations Exs 2001, 2014]
`
`10
`
`
`
`The Claims Would Not Have Been Obvious Over McCown and Dutta
`
`– A POSITA Would Not Have and Could Not Have
`Combined McCown and Dutta and Reasonably
`Expect Success:
`• A POSITA would not have been motivated to modify
`McCown to include a cache and to store download
`information in the cache because McCown stores the
`files at the storage site.
`• Petitioners’ argument about “re-opening the web
`page” would not have motivated a POSITA to modify
`McCown to include a cache and to store download
`information in the cache.
`
`[PO Response, 22-30; Sur-Reply; Jawadi Declarations Exs 2001, 2014]
`
`11
`
`
`
`The Claims Would Not Have Been Obvious Over McCown and Dutta
`
`– A POSITA Would Not Have and Could Not Have
`Combined McCown and Dutta and Reasonably Expect
`Success:
`• the two exhibits relied upon by Petitioners and their experts
`(Exhibits 1017 and 1018) do not even relate to the invention
`of the ’526 Patent, let alone to the claim requirements of
`“deciding or setting in advance by a storage server an
`amount of storage space exclusively to a user of a wireless
`device.
`• The prior art reference EX1017 cited by Petitioners describes
`partitioning of primary memory (e.g., internal memory,
`RAM, or ROM), but not partitioning of disk drives or other
`storage devices and subsystems common in storage servers.
`
`[PO Response, 34-39; Sur-Reply; Jawadi Declarations Exs 2001, 2014]
`
`12
`
`
`
`The Claims Would Not Have Been Obvious Over McCown and Dutta
`
`– A POSITA Would Not Have and Could Not Have
`Combined McCown and Dutta and Reasonably Expect
`Success:
`• EX1017, 4:38-43 would not have taught “predefined
`capacity” or “predefined capacity assigned exclusively by a
`storage server to user of the wireless device” (EX2014, ¶
`110), as claimed by the ’526 Patent
`• The prior art reference EX1018 cited by Petitioners describes
`partitioning of cache memory, but not partitioning of disk
`drives or other storage devices and subsystems common in
`storage servers. Furthermore, the cache partitioning
`described in Petitioners’ EX1018 relates specifically to
`partitioning cache for multiprocessor computer systems, not
`storage servers” (EX2014, ¶ 110).
`
`[PO Response 34-39, Sur-Reply; Jawadi Declarations Exs 2001, 2014]
`
`13
`
`
`
`The Claims Would Not Have Been Obvious Over McCown and Dutta
`
`– A POSITA Would Not Have and Could Not Have
`Combined McCown and Dutta and Reasonably
`Expect Success:
`• Ex. 1018 ¶¶ 7-8 describes managing cache memory in
`multiprocessor systems, including partitioning cache
`memory4:38-43 would not have taught “predefined
`capacity” or “predefined capacity assigned exclusively
`by a storage server to user of the wireless device”
`(EX2014, ¶ 110), as claimed by the ’526 Patent
`
`[PO Response 34-39, Sur-Reply; Jawadi Declarations Exs 2001, 2014]
`
`14
`
`
`
`Objective indicia confirm non-obviousness
`
`• License
`• Commercial Success
`– Microsoft OneDrive
`– Google Drive
`
`[PO Response 39-72 and Sur-Reply
`
`15
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`IPR2020-00316
`Patent 9,098,526
`
`END
`
`16
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e), this is to certify that I served an electronic copy
`
`of the PATENT OWNER’S DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS on the Petitioners’ lead and
`
`backup counsel listed below by email to the following email addresses:
`
`Lead Counsel
`
`Joseph A. Micallef
`Reg. No. 39,772
`iprnotices@sidley.com
`jmicallef@sidley.com
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 736-8492
`
`Backup Counsel
`Scott M. Border
`Reg. No. 77,744
`sborder@sidley.com
`Sidley Austin LLP
`1501 K Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 736-8818
`
`Date: March 29, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: _/Gregory Gonsalves_____
`Dr. Gregory Gonsalves
`Reg. No. 43,639
`Capitol IP Law Group, PLLC
`1918 18th St, Unit 4, NW
`Washington, DC 20009
`Phone: 571-419-7252
`
`Email: gonsalves@capitoliplaw.com
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
